Reply #54: the lead election lawyer was from a big Republican firm in Ohio, btw...

[Land Shark]

For one thing, I think little stock should be put in terms of Kerry's concession to bind us away from getting at the truth because, after all, his decision was made based on limited information available within the wee morning hours after election night. Under the pressure of little sleep and little information and high media pressure plus the threat of a high personal cost being inflicted on kerry personally if he were to contest..... Based on the legal advice I believe (as an election lawyer) he likely got, I can understand a tactical concession even if i don't agree, but what I can't accept is the idea that THE TRUTH NO LONGER MATTERS or that a concession in any way means the truth of the election was not in kerry's favor. It's perhaps hard to understand but election contests are notoriously difficult cases that are seemingly designed to fail (after all, the laws for the same are written by incumbents who also write other election laws to favor incumbents, so the chances are that they will NOT be the contesters of the election...)